Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.4 -
What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.
Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.
Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.
Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stephenearllucas wrote: »Note that total calorie intake was up in 2010 over 1970, but this was entirely due to added fats and flour/cereal products. It looks like somewhere around 500 cals/day increase in average input - no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in the U.S.A. Calories from sugars, veggies, fruit, dairy, and meat/eggs/nuts were flat during this period.
The numbers don't exactly match those from the other graphs - they must have used a different methodology (or data source - they're from different governmental agencies). This graph shows calories from grains going up, the others don't.
It would be interesting to somehow also include what the change has been over the same time period in the amount of calories BURNED each by the same population.
I'm guessing it has decreased at least somewhat with more labor-saving devices, more video-based games and entertainment, etc., but I haven't since such information.
I'd say you are correct on activity levels. Hard thing to correct for and get a meaningful analysis though. IMO is since the average American is larger now than in 1970. Therefor, they would need more calories to support their total daily energy expenditure, even if they are moving the same amount as in 1970.
This study says the average caloric burn related to work decreased 142 calories per day for the average man from 1960-2010. I'd guess the calories burned on activities outside the workday also decreased.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102055/
142 calories per work day x 5 workdays/week x 50 weeks/year = 35,500 calories/year = 10.14 pounds/year weight gain if not offset by reduced eating or increased non-work exercise....6 -
After reading this thread, I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is to eat more cake and less broccoli.10
-
NorthCascades wrote: »After reading this thread, I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is to eat more cake and less broccoli.
You realize absolutely no one has said anything like that, right?6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »After reading this thread, I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is to eat more cake and less broccoli.
After reading this thread I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is not to be American.
5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
Based on the diet he recommended in the other thread (since I'm not watching a video):
“He recommended the following meal plan; Breakfast: fruit, eggs and/or meat, and whole wheat toast . Lunch: Big salad, and meat/fish. Dinner: Big salad, two vegetables, meat/fowl, and fruit.”
I think that's an okay basic diet, but for me (and many) it would be far too restrictive and non-varied to be sustainable, and it's entirely possible to include other foods and be more flexible and still have a very nutritious diet -- that's the point! I don't like having toast at breakfast (toast is IMO a waste of calories for me, as I don't like it that much). I prefer having vegetables for breakfast, sometimes have fruit, often have eggs, but currently am trying to avoid animal products at breakfast. Lunch, I actually often do have a big salad (did today, although with falafel, not chicken, so Lalanne probably would not approve). Lots of times in the winter I prefer my lunch vegetables cooked, though. Dinner, again, I think you can have more variation, although I approve of the focus on lots of vegetables, some cooked, some raw.
Anyway, I don't his template is better than what I ate when losing (or now), such that I should ignore my own tastes and go with his very limited plan. Again, I don't understand why you are fighting to defend him as some diet expert when MyPlate seems to say what you actually want to say without all the issues that people are raising with Lalanne's program.
He also said this:
“Look at the average American diet: ice cream, butter, cheese, whole milk, all this fat. People don't realize how much of this stuff you get by the end of the day. High blood pressure is from all this high-fat eating. Do you know how many calories are in butter and cheese and ice cream?..."
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »After reading this thread, I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is to eat more cake and less broccoli.
You realize absolutely no one has said anything like that, right?
Why are you demonizing broccoli?4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »After reading this thread, I'm convinced the best way to lose weight is to eat more cake and less broccoli.
You realize absolutely no one has said anything like that, right?
Why are you demonizing broccoli?
Did I say that broccoli made me set fires, go all nearsighted, and is worse than heroin?
Funny, I don't remember that.
I thought broccoli was a vegetable, and I'm pretty sure I said eating lots of vegetables was good and important.
Also (again), I did not introduce the "demonizing" thing but only addressed it because you seem to be really, really focused on it. In fact, a while back I believe you suggested that one of my posts could be seen as demonizing added sugar (which I seriously doubt, but, heck, your claim).2 -
Honestly, if you are interpreting people as arguing against eating vegetables or in favor of eating massive amounts of cake, I really am going to just despair of communication.6
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
So in other words, context and dosage do matter?
What a revelation.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
I like the part where his breakfast that you can see in the thumbnail already has 2 sources of lots of sugar after that long list of "bad bad sugar" things. Juice and honey.10 -
Iirc, juice and honey even count as added sugar per nutrition guidelines. Juice has as much sugar as coke, about 10 grams per 100 ml, some even a bit more, honey is basically pure sugar. A 200 ml glass of juice and 1 toast with honey on it has what, 15-20 grams of honey? You just had 40 grams of added sugar for breakfast. Well done, Jack.8
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
ps. I'd rather skip the sugary fruit juice and have milk in my coffee. The horror!3 -
Also, what was the typical US diet in 1955 or whenever this was?
Eggs and toast (and juice) at breakfast was part of it in my house in 1980 still. Also meat and vegetables (and potatoes!) at dinner. Lunch was more variable (since generally not at home), but often involved fruit and veg and bread (for most, I had my weird anti bread thing).
Anyway, I don't think this was such a terrible way of eating. Do people really think that the average person was basing their diet around cake? I mean, I some are are all '50s nostalgic and what not, but that really wasn't what it was like, I don't think (I wasn't alive, but I've heard).
I suspect that in the '50s (as in many other periods of time and now) people ate fewer veg than nutritionists think we should (and I agree with the nutritionists and love vegetables!). Anyone who thinks Lalanne was the only one who pointed that out is wrong, period.
It also seems that Lalanne gave different advice at different times (some of which was super anti fat, some of which was anti dairy and coffee, some of which was a version of "clean eating" that is pointless and unnecessary, and some of which was probably very good), so what exactly is this thread about? Is there a proposition to be debated?5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
I'm also confused about the point of this discussion. People have said repeatedly in this thread that of course it is sensible to limit foods that a person tends to overeat, which may be the foods on this list or it may be different foods. OP continues to refer back to the SAD, which had always been a perplexing concept for me, in a country with billions of people of all different walks of life, how is there a Standard American Diet? Put 10 random people in a room and ask them to show you what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I doubt there would be much significant overlap at all - peoples tastes, cooking habits, economic status and ethnicity all drive what they eat and likely result in varied food choices that make it difficult to standardize. That's why so many find the blanket guidance to cut down this particular list of calorie dense foods not the end all be all solution for every overweight person on the planet - I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
This post seems to me like an opportunity to look with disdain at all those fat Americans and anyone trying to point out that not everyone gets fat by guzzling 3 super sized cokes and stuffing their face with cake and cookies (and weirdly jam) is seen as promoting these foods and that type of eating.
8 -
What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
I'm also confused about the point of this discussion. People have said repeatedly in this thread that of course it is sensible to limit foods that a person tends to overeat, which may be the foods on this list or it may be different foods. OP continues to refer back to the SAD, which had always been a perplexing concept for me, in a country with billions of people of all different walks of life, how is there a Standard American Diet? Put 10 random people in a room and ask them to show you what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I doubt there would be much significant overlap at all - peoples tastes, cooking habits, economic status and ethnicity all drive what they eat and likely result in varied food choices that make it difficult to standardize. That's why so many find the blanket guidance to cut down this particular list of calorie dense foods not the end all be all solution for every overweight person on the planet - I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
This post seems to me like an opportunity to look with disdain at all those fat Americans and anyone trying to point out that not everyone gets fat by guzzling 3 super sized cokes and stuffing their face with cake and cookies (and weirdly jam) is seen as promoting these foods and that type of eating.
Consigned. Well said!2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
I'm also confused about the point of this discussion. People have said repeatedly in this thread that of course it is sensible to limit foods that a person tends to overeat, which may be the foods on this list or it may be different foods. OP continues to refer back to the SAD, which had always been a perplexing concept for me, in a country with billions of people of all different walks of life, how is there a Standard American Diet? Put 10 random people in a room and ask them to show you what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I doubt there would be much significant overlap at all - peoples tastes, cooking habits, economic status and ethnicity all drive what they eat and likely result in varied food choices that make it difficult to standardize. That's why so many find the blanket guidance to cut down this particular list of calorie dense foods not the end all be all solution for every overweight person on the planet - I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
This post seems to me like an opportunity to look with disdain at all those fat Americans and anyone trying to point out that not everyone gets fat by guzzling 3 super sized cokes and stuffing their face with cake and cookies (and weirdly jam) is seen as promoting these foods and that type of eating.
This ham fisted one-size fits all approach to dieting advice is a lot of what's wrong with the diet/fitness industry. A lot of the best dieting advice sounds really vague, frankly.
It's hard to hear, but there isn't a quick fix to the obesity problem, because even though you can cite generalized statistics, those statistics are still made up of individuals making individual choices for various reasons and those reasons vary. The approaches each of those people need to modify their behaviors and lifestyles will vary.
This is why there is push-back on a lot of threads like these where a recommendation like this is given. A lot of us are veterans of weight loss attempts and we know that very specific, restrictive advice like this ultimately fails.
9 -
goldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I'm the exact opposite. I didn't touch sugar for years thinking I had a problem with it. I still overate and reached my highest weight ever eating a very healthy whole foods diet.
And this makes my point. Everyone's issue with weight is individual to them and this is why specific, restrictive guidance cannot ever be a universal solution.10 -
@goldthistimegoldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I have simply pointed out there is a huge flaw in dumbing down a message so it only works for some people. Additionally it also panders to the lack of individual responsibility around over eating - it's not my fault I ate too much, it's the fault of the foods themselves.
The universal way to weight loss has to involve eating less calories I think we agree on.
I have no problem at all in combining eat less and eat better messages, what I do have a problem with is simply eat differently or eat better without mention of reduction in calories. Swap table sugar for honey for example, sheer woo and ignorance as a weight loss technique
Reducing or eliminating the food items listed for you would seem to work, for me the list is an irrelevance as it simply doesn't figure as a major part of my normal diet or even my treats.
A bag of sugar lasts months in my house, most of my cake is eaten while I'm cycling (burning more calories than the cake provides), my soda has zero calories, my fruit isn't canned etc. etc.
Reducing savoury snacks - now that would have an impact for me but they aren't on the list.
6 -
goldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I wouldn't trash the advice that one can lose by just changing one's diet, if one wants to do that. Many, many people do not do it successfully, and when I did I also paid attention to things like added fat and portions, but I've lost doing such things (and I've also lost by increasing exercise at a time when I had a pretty consistent diet).
But telling me to cut out pop (which I did not consume) and sweets (when I don't have a huge sweet tooth) would not have made a difference. I needed to eat more sensibly at restaurants (nice restaurants where I ordered food that was "good for you" under the usual definition, but high cal), too much added fat (at home), overly large portions (sometimes more than I wanted, but if I put it on my plate I ate it), some higher fat meats like pulled pork or even cuts of lamb and beef (home-cooked), nuts, and especially cheese (good cheese from specific places and all that). Also, at times, wine.
I don't think all of this was "good for me" and obviously it includes some treats, but focusing on sweets would have missed the point entirely.
And because I ate a bunch of vegetables, among other things, I thought I had a basically healthy diet, and I probably did, except the calories were out of control.
I find it annoying when people seem to assume that if you were ever fat you were eating in a specific way that does not fit me at all. (And apparently not many others here.) Not everyone finds sugar to be their biggest weakness.3 -
Also, to add to that, if someone is motivated to lose weight by improving the quality of their diet (and I support and applaud that), why not give them advice about nutrition and how to create a nutritious diet? Why insist that the best way to do it (as that's what Lalanne apparently did at various times) was to give them a list of foods to avoid (which are mostly foods that everyone already knows are high cal plus some oddballs)? Or (as he apparently did at other times) a very limited diet? Why not actually teach them about nutrition and how to have flexible rules based on an understanding of that that work with their own life?
When I suggested that (which is what MyPlate is basically trying to do), I got all this pushback, and I don't understand why. It seems to me a better overall approach for most.6 -
@goldthistimegoldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I have simply pointed out there is a huge flaw in dumbing down a message so it only works for some people. Additionally it also panders to the lack of individual responsibility around over eating - it's not my fault I ate too much, it's the fault of the foods themselves.
The universal way to weight loss has to involve eating less calories I think we agree on.
I have no problem at all in combining eat less and eat better messages, what I do have a problem with is simply eat differently or eat better without mention of reduction in calories. Swap table sugar for honey for example, sheer woo and ignorance as a weight loss technique
Reducing or eliminating the food items listed for you would seem to work, for me the list is an irrelevance as it simply doesn't figure as a major part of my normal diet or even my treats.
A bag of sugar lasts months in my house, most of my cake is eaten while I'm cycling (burning more calories than the cake provides), my soda has zero calories, my fruit isn't canned etc. etc.
Reducing savoury snacks - now that would have an impact for me but they aren't on the list.
Exactly. Very specific advice isn't always helpful for every individual due to varying issues.0 -
Since we've speculated about "normal" eating in the 1950s-60s, I've posted a separate thread with images from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-19602 -
Since we've speculated about "normal" eating in the 1950s-60s, I've posted a separate thread with images from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960
I added a bit more from the book to the thread. Some of you will enjoy it.2 -
On the pop thing. I can recall one person in my life who drank huge amounts of soda. And he wasn't fat. Had abs in fact. Because context. He was super active and needed the calories. His diet wasn't great overall but he would be just the thing for fitspo fodder these days.
Everyone else, and I literally mean everyone, would at most have a can a day of standard soda. Everyone else would reach for a diet drink. Or there was that whole smoothie phase that has chilled a bit now. But smoothie because fruit and healthy! Not realising that and the coke are similarly calorific and within a diet already in a caloric excess is really not helping matters. They should switch back to the diet soda or coffee.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions